References: [2003] EWHC 1813 (QB), Times 05-Aug-2003, [2004] 1 WLR 363, [2004] 2 All ER 373
Links: Bailii
Coram: Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Ratio: The defendant sought a stay of a warrant for possession. It had submitted to an order for possession by consent in return for a promise of alternative accomodation. They sought a stay under section 89, saying that the claimant had not complied with its own obligations.
Held: The general words of section 89 do not permit the high court to find that section 89 does not apply to consent orders. The possession order could not be postponed.
Statutes: Housing Act 1980 89(1)
This case cites:
- per incuriam – Bain and Co v Church Commissioners for England ChD ([1989] 1 WLR 24, Independent 25-Jul-88)
Section 89 does not apply to an order for possession made by the High Court, and an application for an adjournment of a possession order must be refused. The word ‘Court’ must be construed to refer to the County Court only: ‘possession of a dwelling . . - Cited – Re International Tin Council ChD ([1987] Ch 419)
An order for the winding up of a foreign company operates universally, applies to all the foreign company’s assets and brings into play the full panoply of powers and duties under the Insolvency Act 1986 like any other winding up order. Millett J . . - Cited – Re International Tin Council CA ([1989] Ch 309, [1988] 3 WLR 1159)
Creditors sought to treat the International Tin Council as an ‘association’ for the purposes of a provision under the Companies Act 1985 allowing for unregistered companies to be wound up.
Held: The decision in Re a Company was binding. The . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Boyland and Son Ltd v Rand CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 1860, [2007] HLR 24)
The defendant travellers occupied land belonging to the claimants. A possession order had been obtained, and the defendants now sought a reasonable time to be allowed to leave.
Held: The law had not changed, and section 89 could not be used to . . - Applied – Admiral Taverns (Cygnet Ltd) v Daly and Another CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 1501, Times 12-Jan-09)
The landlord appealed against a stay made on its suspended possession order by the High Court, saying that only the county court had such jurisdiction.
Held: ‘court’ in the section must mean any court. . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 06 April 2019
Ref: 185058
The post Hackney v Side By Side (Kids) Ltd: QBD 14 Jul 2003 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.